Techdirt. Stories filed under "rant"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "rant"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 3 May 2013 15:03:00 PDTAngry Patent Lawyer Still Angry, Claims PatentlyO's Dennis Crouch Is Both A 'Dickhead' And Violated CFAAMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130503/11582122939/angry-patent-lawyer-still-angry-claims-patentlyos-dennis-crouch-is-both-dickhead-violated-cfaa.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130503/11582122939/angry-patent-lawyer-still-angry-claims-patentlyos-dennis-crouch-is-both-dickhead-violated-cfaa.shtmlvery angry patent lawyer, by the name of Andrew Schroeder. The story of his unbelievable rant filed with the patent office was originally highlighted over at PatentlyO, by Dennis Crouch, who most folks in the patent business are well aware of because of the blog and his regular commentary on patent-related issues. After Crouch published the rant, the story caught on in the press and it got a bit of coverage, including on our site as an example of how not to conduct business before the patent office. Everyone has bad days. And the best thing to do is to admit that you had a bad day and move on.

Both posts are filled with poorly designed graphics, mostly mocking Crouch, which Schroeder proudly takes credit for late in that first post. These aren't even "bad in an ironic way" graphics. They're just bad. In the way that someone is when they first discover how Photoshop works and suddenly thinks they're a master of design bad. But the rant is just as wacky. He never apologizes for the language he uses, beyond noting that it was "less than flattering." No, his focus is on the claim that his insane rant -- in which he accused a patent examiner of taking drugs, being drunk, not reading the patent application, of having to write with crayons and a variety of other euphemisms to suggest that the examiner has mental problems -- was a "confidential" communication between himself and the examiner, and revealing it involved both (a) illegal hacking into the USPTO site and (b) being a "dickhead" for thinking it might be entertaining to highlight his ranting.

One of the things I find fascinating about this whole ordeal is the fact that many of the articles written since Patentlyo’s blog post all assume that this was some sort of “PUBLIC” rant or tirade. Everyone assumes that this was some sort of “Open Letter” to the USPTO that I wrote to shame this particular Examiner (in fact, this was just between the Examiner, his Senior Examiner and me…and no one else). In fact, this was a confidential letter and anyone who tells you anything to the contrary is full of shit, I don’t give a fuck what they tell you.

Uh, no, it wasn't.

From there, Schroeder goes into a big rant about how terrible it is to use the USPTO's filing system. That may be true, but so what? That has nothing to do with the inappropriate nature of his rant. Schroeder, however, connects the dots to claim that because the USPTO site is so complicated, he would have thought that it would protect his "confidential" communications better (there's an assumption in there that's not quite true...). He also includes some totally gratuitous ad hominem attacks on Crouch, because no Schroeder rant is complete without resorting to sophomoric trash talking.

He further complains that Crouch appears to be "sympathizing with the Examiner!" because no one could possibly sympathize with a patent examiner. Now, we're generally no big fans of patent examiners around here, because we tend to think they approve all sorts of junk patents, but I think it's rather easy to sympathize with the recipient of Schroeder's rage rant. Of course, Schroeder hates examiners for the opposite reason we do. He insists they're not approving nearly enough patents, and that their default is to reject patents. In fact, he gives an anecdotal "side note" about some mythical patent examiner who has a 100% rejection rate. That's amusing, since (as we pointed out recently) in 2012, nearly 90% of all patent applications were eventually approved. And Schroeder thinks examiners are too quick to reject?

In the second post, Schroeder insists that as far as he can tell it's absolutely impossible that Crouch could have found his rant in the PAIR system, and therefore, he believes that Crouch hacked into the USPTO's computers and violated the CFAA.

I’m gonna have to crowdsource this one because I’ve been doing research and can’t seem to figure out how Dennis Crouch was able to access my account with the USPTO. It has always been my understanding that patent applications less than 18 months old and their office action responses are to remain confidential. I’m starting to think that Patentlyo’s Dennis Crouch just wants me to believe that it is common knowledge that you can access anyone’s records there at the USPTO. However, from my own research I have found no evidence whatsoever that it is possible. And more importantly, I DON’T EVEN KNOW IF HIS ACTIONS WERE EVEN LEGAL!

The more I think about it, the more likely it is that Dennis Crouch may have broken a whole bunch of laws. When it comes to cyber crimes there are state laws (one for where he lives, possibly where I live, and that of Alexandria, Virginia (USPTO).

And then of course there are Federal laws as well such as the CFAA (Computer Fraud & Abuse Act) which makes it a felony to hack and steal documents similar to what Dennis mother fucking menace may have done.

That one comes complete with a poorly executed graphic showing Crouch's head mixed in with the text "Computer Hacking is Cool" and pretending that this is a class that Crouch teaches at the University of Missouri Law School.

Randomly, at the end of the first blog post, Schroeder goes off on how proud he is of the hard work he puts into designing his websites:

You see, for the past several years I have taught myself how to build my own websites, everything…from A-Z. I can do HTML, the Videos, the graphics, the images, CSS, and even the SEO. And I think that I can build one hell of a website. For the past several years, I have had countless people call me out of the blue and ask me who built my website. When I reveal to them that it was me, they usually respond with something like, “No, really, who actually built your website?”

I love building websites. I get absorbed in it, and I can’t tell you how many times I have looked up at the clock to see “3:AM”, and wonder where the past 12 hours went. Some guys have video games, girls have shoe hunting expeditions, I have the website munchies. So, if any of you have gotten this far and think you need a website, go ahead and give me a call, and I’ll hook you up!

The website has to be seen to be believed. Not only does it not function without javascript, but the layout is ridiculous and confusing, the graphics don't line up, and (as mentioned) the graphic design is awful. So, not only can you get a patent lawyer who might start cursing you out and rant at you for not approving the patent he wanted you to approve, but he might start advertising his awful web design skills in the middle of it all. Wow. Here's a screenshot of one of the blog posts (each has their own "background" image that distracts from, well, everything.

Schroeder might do well to consider taking a deep breath before writing any more angry rants and maybe, just maybe, taking a class on web an graphic design.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>andrew-schroeder,-have-you-met-charles-carreon?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130503/11582122939Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:58:24 PDTJudge's Random, Unrelated Rant Against Facebook Leads To Child Porn Sentence Being OverturnedMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130406/00170522610/judges-random-unrelated-rant-against-facebook-leads-to-child-porn-sentence-being-overturned.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130406/00170522610/judges-random-unrelated-rant-against-facebook-leads-to-child-porn-sentence-being-overturned.shtmlfilm an 8-year-old girl engaging in sexually explicit content. As I said: horrifying. Assuming all that is true, I'm happy to see them get locked up for a long, long time (in fact, 8 years seems too short).

However, that sentencing has now been sent back to the lower court, because the judge who issued the sentence apparently spent a significant amount of time at the sentencing blaming Facebook for child pornography and attacking Mark Zuckerberg. While the full transcript is sealed (due to the fact that the case involves a minor), the ruling to redo the sentencing includes some details:

In justifying its decision to impose a sentence of eight years instead of six, the district court referenced “Facebook, and things like it, and society has changed.” ... The court speculated that the proliferation of Facebook would facilitate an increase in child pornography cases. The court said it hoped Mark Zuckerberg (who founded Facebook) was “enjoying all his money because . . . he’s going to hurt a lot of people . . . .”

Just one problem: the case had nothing to do with Facebook. In fact, it had nothing to do with the internet. And yet the judge claimed that he upped her sentence because of Facebook:

Culver is correct that the court’s lengthy discussion of Facebook had no clear connection to the facts of her case. It is plain error for a district court to rely upon its own unsupported theory of deterrence at sentencing, especially where, as here, that theory has little
application to the actual facts of the case itself.... This error undoubtedly affected Culver’s substantial rights; the court stated that it would have granted a sentence of six years if not for its concerns about Facebook and general deterrence. See Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 42 (“[W]hat we’re looking at is general deterrence, and the general deterrence is very important, and frankly, that’s why I went to eight [years] instead of six.”).

While the government defended the judge's rant, the appeals court points out that given the lack of any connection to the internet at all in this case, it clearly didn't make any sense:

The government argues that the district court was merely concerned about the extent to which various new technologies may facilitate child pornography, rather than Facebook specifically. In that sense, Facebook was a
reference to the internet, using synecdoche. But the government does not explain (because it cannot) the role of new technology in this case. Culver did not use the internet to commit her crime, and it should not have played a predominant role in her sentencing.

The court further notes that a sentence of 8 years may be entirely appropriate. In fact, it points out that this is below the minimum sentencing guidelines, though it sounds like the court gave Culver a "lower" sentence for cooperating against Sensi, but still notes that the "particularly abhorrent" nature of her crime may still mean that the eventual sentence (or even more) is appropriate, but "that discretion should be exercised without the influence of procedural error."

Indeed. Oh, and in case you're wondering, the judge in question, Warren Eginton, appears to be nearing 90 years old, which may explains some of his misplaced hatred for things like Facebook.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>wtf?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130406/00170522610Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:53:00 PDTStudent Found Guilty Of 'Disturbing The Peace' For Sending Nasty Political Email To ProfessorMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090618/0058075274.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090618/0058075274.shtmlespecially true in the political arena, where various positions are stereotyped and extreme passions come out quickly. I tend to find such discussions tiresome. However, they occur all the time (occasionally here in our own comments). But could you consider such a conversation disturbing the peace? It appears that's exactly what happened to a student in Nebraska who had a rather nasty political email exchange with a professor.

The student and the professor exchanged a series of emails over a short period of time. The two were at opposite ends of the political spectrum (which side was which, honestly, doesn't and shouldn't matter), and the student used some nasty language and accused the professor of being a traitor among other things. To be honest, if you've spent any time in online political discussions, this really isn't particularly out of the ordinary -- and (somewhat amazingly) after a back-and-forth exchange where the professor asked the student to stop emailing him and noting how insulted he was by the emails, the student did send a long apologetic email, telling the professor he was sorry that he got so riled up, and he really liked the professor and just wanted to debate someone intelligent who viewed the world from a very different perspective.

A few months went by, and then the professor received two anonymous emails from a new Yahoo email address that used the professor's name as part of the address (the username was "averylovesalqueda"), again ranting politically against the professor. The professor found the emails threatening and turned them over to the police. The police eventually tracked the emails down to the same student who was then charged with disturbing the peace. Yes. Disturbing the peace. For sending a nasty email.

First Amendment scholars look out. Who knew that sending a private ranting email could disturb the peace?

Amazingly, a lower court and now the appeals court agreed and the student has been convicted of disturbing the peace for sending those emails. The court even claims that the email address itself is libelous which seems quite difficult to square with reality. No one would look at that email address and assume that it was actually from the professor in question, and there's no indication that anyone outside of the professor himself ever saw the email address in question. O'Toole, in his post, puts the blame not on the judges, but on the student, who chose to defend himself, and appears to have done a pretty poor job of it, now leaving this ruling to be used as a citation in other cases. This is bad news no matter how you look at it. Even granting O'Toole's premise that the student is at fault for defending himself (and doing such a poor job of it), it's still bothersome that a judge wouldn't take basic First Amendment rights into consideration here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>wowhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090618/0058075274Mon, 4 May 2009 10:31:29 PDTThe Mother Of All Anti-Google Rants: Comparing Google To The TalibanMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0253274733.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0253274733.shtmlgood banks rather than bad banks. It made a lot of sense, and I remembered thinking I should pay attention to what Buiter has to say. However, after his latest, I'm left scratching my head. Over in the Financial Times, Buiter has written what has to be the mother of all anti-Google rants, trashing the company both on privacy and on intellectual property issues:

Google is to privacy and respect for intellectual property rights what the Taliban are to women's rights and civil liberties: a daunting threat that must be fought relentlessly by all those who value privacy and the right to exercise, within the limits of the law, control over the uses made by others of their intellectual property. The internet search engine company should be regulated rigorously, defanged and if necessary, broken up or put out of business. It would not be missed.

In a nutshell, Google promotes copyright theft and voyeurism and lays the foundations for corporate or even official Big Brotherism.

It goes on along those lines. It's quite a read. There's just one problem: Buiter doesn't seem to understand what he's talking about. First of all, it's hard to believe the statement that if Google went out of business "it would not be missed." If that were the case, why do so many people use it so often? I would suggest plenty of people would miss Google and Buiter presents no evidence to suggest otherwise, other than the fact that he, personally, really dislikes Google. But, he seems to do so solely because he doesn't understand how Google works.

On the copyright front, Buiter's argument is extremely confused:

Google has been making available copyrighted material for download on its websites for years (books through Google Books, music through YouTube, newspaper material through Google News), often without obtaining prior consent of the copyright holder and generally without making any payments to the copyright holders. There is a word for that kind of behaviour: theft. Just because you steal using internet technology does not make it anything other than theft. As an author, this naturally concerns me.

Where to start? First, the three services named are all entirely different. His strongest case might be against Google Books, but even that's a stretch. Google (contrary to Buiter's claim) never "made [books] available for download." That's simply not true. What Google did was index books by scanning them. You could never download them. You could view snippets of those books, limited to just a few pages, based on a search. Basically, all the company did was create a much more effective card catalog. So, Buiter has his facts wrong on Google Books.

As for YouTube, again, Buiter's facts are simply incorrect. Google never made music downloadable. Some users (not Google itself) did upload music videos, but it's wrong (and slightly mixed up) to blame Google for the actions of its users. Second, Google never made the content on YouTube downloadable. It's true that there were some third part apps that allowed stuff to be downloaded, but not that many people use them, and it's a bit twisted to blame Google for third party apps being used to get content from third party users... isn't it?

Google News is the most confused claim here. After all, Google did nothing here other than index content that newspapers put online free themselves, and then Google sent people to those newspaper websites. It never displayed or offered the content itself, except in the rare cases where it had made deals to do exactly that. To claim that it's somehow illegal to send newspapers traffic for content they put online themselves is quite odd.

And, of course, we've discussed at length why copyright infringement isn't theft, and it's somewhat depressing to see an economist claim otherwise, when he should recognize the difference between copying rivalrous goods and copying non-rivalrous ones. But, even that debate is silly, because what Google does isn't even infringement, let alone theft. Buiter simply appears to be almost 100% misinformed about what Google does on this issue, and makes a bunch of false statements to support his highly questionable assertion that Google is somehow involved in theft.

Google Street View, an addition to Google Maps provides panorama images visible from street level in cities around the world. The cameras record details of residents' lives, including pictures of drunk people throwing up, people in intimate clinches with persons with whom they are not officially affiliated, small children playing in a yard, with or without adult supervision, etc. etc. A wonderful database for voyeurs, peeping toms and would-be child molesters.

Again, Buiter appears to be confused and/or misinformed. All of the photos in Google Street View are taken on public streets. It's not a privacy issue at all. And he misses the fact that any questionable or problematic pictures can be (and are) quickly removed by Google. Finally, the ridiculous claim that it's a service for "voyeurs, peeping toms and would-be child molesters" is supported by absolutely nothing. Considering the fact that the content is often weeks or months old, and hardly real time, it's hard to see how it's useful for such purposes at all. Peeping toms and voyeurs are people who view people in private through windows and such. Google Street View does no such thing.

Another way that Google (along with others, including Microsoft and Yahoo) invades our privacy is through the use of tracking cookies or 'third-party persistent cookies' to implement interest-based advertising (a.k.a behavioural targeting).

Really? In 2009? Still complaining about the threat of cookies to privacy? That argument has been out of fashion for nearly a decade, and every browser has pretty clear and easy controls if it's really a problem for Buiter. For most of us, though, we recognize that the cookies are hardly a problem.

Or, alternatively, Buiter is free to not use Google. Considering he claims the company wouldn't be missed, I'm confused why he appears to use the site in the first place. At least, at the end of his article, he claims he's planning to get rid of Google, though he still seems to think that regulations are needed to shut the site down:

It is time for people to take a stand, as individual consumers and internet users, and collectively through laws and regulations, to tame this new Leviathan. When I get back from this trip, I will do my best to remove every trace of Google from my computers, even the tracking cookies (if I can!).

The good news is that in the comments to his article on the FT.com site, people take him to task on pretty much every point he raised. One hopes that he actually bothers to read the comments, because he seems to have based his opinions on factually inaccurate information, and that makes his conclusions quite troubling. For a respected economist, you would expect better.